Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] Bring back driver_deferred_probe_check_state() for now

Saravana Kannan
2022-08-10T00:25:20Z

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 4:47 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 12:29 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:50:08AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > More fixes/changes are needed before driver_deferred_probe_check_state()
> > > can be deleted. So, bring it back for now.
> > >
> > > Greg,
> > >
> > > Can we get this into 5.19? If not, it might not be worth picking up this
> > > series. I could just do the other/more fixes in time for 5.20.
> >
> > Wow, no, it is _WAY_ too late for 5.19 to make a change like this,
> > sorry.
> >
> > What is so broken that we need to revert these now? I could do so for
> > 5.20-rc1, and then backport to 5.19.y if that release is really broken,
> > but this feels odd so late in the cycle.

Greg,

I didn't realize the patches I'm trying to revert never landed on
5.19. So you can ignore this thread.

>
> I spent a bunch of time bisecting mainline today on my
> sc7180-trogdor-lazor board. When building the top of Linus's tree
> today the display doesn't come up. I can make it come up by turning
> fw_devlink off (after fixing a regulator bug that I just posted a fix
> for).
>
> I found that the first bad commit was commit 5a46079a9645 ("PM:
> domains: Delete usage of driver_deferred_probe_check_state()")
>
> ...but only when applied to mainline. When I cherry-pick that back to
> v5.19-rc1 (and pick another bugfix needed to boot my board against
> v5.19-rc1) then it works OK. After yet more bisecting, I found that on
> trogdor there's a bad interaction with the commit e511a760 ("arm64:
> dts: qcom: sm7180: remove assigned-clock-rate property for mdp clk").
> That commit is perfectly legit but I guess it somehow changed how
> fw_devlink was interpreting things?
>
> Sure enough, picking this revert series fixes things on Linus's tree.
> Any chance we can still get the revert in for v5.20-rc1? ;-)

I guess it's 6.0 now. But I'm almost done with my actual fixes that
rewrite some parts of fw_devlink to make it a lot more robust. So, I'm
not sure if all these reverts need to land anymore.

I'm hoping to send out the proper fixes by the end of this week. Maybe
you can try that out and let me know if it solves your issues (I
expect it to).

I'm surprised that specific clock patch has an impact though. It's
just touching properties that fw_devlink doesn't parse.

-Saravana